| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: patch: function xmltable |
| Date: | 2017-01-25 22:43:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCrj1J6FejdgOCbWjH3U3ATGD_zUE6Q3k7ydkPWpHeGnA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-01-25 23:33 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
> On 2017-01-25 22:51:37 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > 2017-01-25 22:40 GMT+01:00 Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>:
> > > > I afraid when I cannot to reuse a SRF infrastructure, I have to
> > > reimplement
> > > > it partially :( - mainly for usage in "ROWS FROM ()"
> > >
> >
> > The TableExpr implementation is based on SRF now. You and Alvaro propose
> > independent implementation like generic executor node. I am sceptic so
> > FunctionScan supports reading from generic executor node.
>
> Why would it need to?
>
Simply - due consistency with any other functions that can returns rows.
Maybe I don't understand to Alvaro proposal well - I have a XMLTABLE
function - TableExpr that looks like SRF function, has similar behave -
returns more rows, but should be significantly different implemented, and
should to have different limits - should not be used there and there ... It
is hard to see consistency there for me.
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-25 22:49:29 | Re: tuplesort_gettuple_common() and *should_free argument |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-25 22:41:22 | Re: pg_ls_dir & friends still have a hard-coded superuser check |